review: Canon 50mm lenses – bokeh

This photo of a street performer in New York was shot with a 50mm lens. That should be fairly obvious from a quick scrutiny – the perspective (which is not wide, and neither tight); and the shallow depth of field. That sort of gives away that a 50mm lens was most likely used for this loosely composed candid portrait.

Now, I have to admit that I have this strange love-disinterest relationship with the 50mm focal length. Not quite love-hate, but more a frustration at times with the 50mm as the main lens to use. It feels like it is either not wide enough (to get more of the environment in, or to get an interesting perspective), or that it isn’t tight enough (for a tighter portrait that includes less.) With most of my photography work, I rely on the 24-70mm and 70-200mm zoom lenses.

Yet, for all that, the 50mm lens is an essential lens that deserves a spot in your camera bag. Their optical performance are usually of the highest order because there are less demands on correcting for various optical aberrations. Also, the budget 50mm lenses are very affordable, and a superb entry into the super-shallow depth-of-field look that give some photos such visual appeal.

When I posted the review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens, there were questions about when I would post the review of the Canon mount lens. As if the change in the mount would make the Sigma ART lens less or more spectacular. But, fair enough, we should have a comparative review of the Canon-mount Sigma 50mm ART lens against the other 50mm offerings. A direct comparison might tell us how this lens performs in relation to its price to other Canon mount 50mm lenses.

With such a wide range in price (and build quality), it might seem slightly ridiculous in a way to compare these lenses. Yet, it might also be a good way to see what each lens offers in each price bracket. What would the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens (affiliate) offer that the f/1.8 lenses don’t? And would the f/1.8 lenses still appear good value when compared to the more pricey lenses?

Hopefully, some of these mysteries will unfold in this review which concentrates on bokeh, and the follow-up review in which we will look at the sharpness of these lenses. (Comparing various optical aberrations and such, is outside of the scope of this particular review.)

For those who are the kind of people who flip to the last page of a book to read the ending first, here’s the final summary …

Considering both the sharpness and the bokeh, for me, the Sigma 50mm F1.4 ART lens (affiliate) has that perfect intersection between price and quality. Next in line, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (affiliate), is surprisingly good. It really holds its own, and is the best value for money for those wanting to buy a 50mm lens. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L (affiliate), as you might expect, is a somewhat of an outlier – it gives a unique, if sometimes subtly different result than the other lenses.

So, no real spoilers there, but let’s take a closer look at these lenses. As mentioned, in this, the first of a two-part review, we’ll specifically be considering the bokeh of these lenses.

Before we go any further, a few notes about ‘bokeh’:

Bokeh is the description of the quality of the (background) blur. There’s no such thing as a lens “giving more bokeh”. Bokeh is usually described as harsh or smooth. Or other such descriptive qualities. Buttery or jittery. Something like that. There is no such thing as a lens having “more bokeh”.

Looking again at this photo – even though it shows shallow depth-of-field, the bokeh can be described as jittery or harsh. Look at the railings in the background – there is an intrusiveness to how they appear in the photo – as if there is a “double edge” to the blur. Same for the building in the right-hand background.

All of this makes the image appear “busier” compared to how it would’ve looked if we had used a lens which gives us a smoother background bokeh. If you don’t quite recognize it here, it will become more apparent in the next section where we will directly compare similar images. We will specifically look at the bokeh of each lens in the next section, as long as we are okay with the idea that ‘bokeh’ and ‘shallow DoF’ aren’t interchangeable phrases!

Whether this – the bokeh of a lens – is important to you, is something you’ll have to decide for yourself. For example, both the Canon and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses have fairly busy bokeh. Not really harsh, but definitely not smooth. However, their versatility and usefulness far outweigh their bokeh as a consideration. For many photographers though, the bokeh is an important deciding factor in choosing a lens – it can definitely become part of the artistic palette you use.

A note about these tests – I tried to keep things as similar as possible between photos. However, since these were shot on location, light can change between photos. For the most part, I worked with a tripod to help keep the framing exact.

Comparing the bokeh of the Canon 50mm lenses – Example 1

I shot several sequences with each lens, at various apertures. For this comparison, I chose just the apertures at f/1.8 so that we have some kind of equivalency.

Cropping at 50% from the left-hand corner, the differences should be immediately obvious. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM has that jittery, busy look to the background. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 improves slightly. Then with a big jump in improvement of the background bokeh, both the Sigma 50mmm f/1.4 ART and the Canon 50mm f/1.2L lenses are about on par here. But with further comparisons, the 1.2L has the advantage over the Sigma in having a slightly smoother rendition of the background.

(I messed up entirely on the sequence with the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 lens. Don’t ask!)

Comparing the bokeh of the Canon 50mm lenses – Example 2

As another test to compare the bokeh of these lenses, I photographed Melanie in front of this shrub. The thinner leaves are ideal to show how the bokeh would appear – smooth or busy. Again, for this comparison, I chose just the apertures at f/1.8 for some kind of equivalency.

Cropping at 50% from the left-hand corner, the differences should still be obvious. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lenses are about the same to my eye. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 looks busier than those two lenses, but not too horrible. Then, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM predictably has that harsh bokeh, giving a type of double edge to the lines. To my eye, this looks intrusive, especially compared to the f/1.2 lens. The Yongnuo 50mm lens has approximately the same look – a distractingly busy feel to the background.

Comparing the Canon 50mm f/1.2L to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 – Bokeh

As you can see, looking at the bokeh of these two lenses – the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM ($1350), and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 ART lens ($850) – there isn’t much to separate them. The bokeh looks different under closer scrutiny, but not in a way that I would say is better or superior. They just look slightly different. But the bokeh for both lenses appear smooth. I’d be happy with either.

Summary

Where the Sigma does fall down, as mentioned in my review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens, the Sigma is consistently under-exposed by a third of a stop, for the same camera settings. An aperture of f/1.2 optic is half a stop faster than an aperture of f/1.4 … so if you have correct exposure with the Canon f/1.2 then for a similar exposure with the Sigma ART lens, you’d have to have a shutter speed nearly a stop slower. (Or, the ISO nearly a stop higher.) That could be crucial if you shoot in low light, and need that extra bit of shutter speed to reduce camera shake, or help freeze movement.

In terms of the bokeh alone, I would say the the Canon 50mm f/1.2L and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART are about on the same level.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, which sells for $330, has a fairly decent bokeh. Not as smooth as the other top-end optics, but much better than the bokeh of the f/1.8 optics.

The two budget optics have disappointingly distracting background bokeh … but they are so affordable, that they would appeal on price alone if the bokeh isn’t of any importance to you.

A little bit of homework

This photo above of Olga, was taken at f/1.8 with the Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 (affiliate). Even without being told that, if we look at the busy-ness of the background in the bottom right, a good guess would be that either the Yongnuo or the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM was used. The bokeh is a big clue here as to which lens out of the fives tested here, might’ve been used.

As a little bit of homework, let’s look at the 50% crop of a similar image to the one above. Let’s see if you can accurately place which Canon 50mm lens was used for these – the f/1.8 STM, or the f/1.4 or the f/1.2L lenses. The neon lights in the background did change their display – but look at the overall smoothness, or the lack thereof. All three these images where shot at f/2.0

Great review, Neil, and very timely–I like my Sigma 35 so much I’ve been wondering if I should replace my old Canon f/1.2 50 with it. Now I know, and I won’t. Good lesson in what to look for in bokeh, too, and what separates the good from the bad (or not-so-good). Thanks for posting it.

I recently lost (misplaced) my 50mm f/1.8 and decided to replace it with the f/1.4 version. Like you, Neil, I am not a total fan of this focal length but, that said, the f/1.4 really is so much better than its cheaper sibling. The build quality is heaps better as is the bokeh. It just delivered a significantly better result in my opinion.

The 50mm focal length has been bought many times by myself because they can be very affordable. For Weddings however I have yet to use one, because as you state neil it sits in no mans land for me, neither wide enough for indoors or long enough for portraits

I totally agree to all your points, and want to add: Yes, one may say, the 50mm lenses give a boring perspective, but one could also say… a totally natural and elegant one. :-)

For me, the decision towards the 50 1.2 was, that I had a look at all the brenizer panos I took the last months, did a calculation regarding the corresponding focal length and aperture and discovered, that obviously, I really often try to come close to something like 45 f/1.0 … 52 f/1.2 … numbers like that.

the 50mm length is length I just don’t love, its vanilla. I had the Sigma and never reached for it so I sold it. I, like Neil would rather reach for my 24-70 or 70-200. But now there’s a new player in my bag, its the Nikon 85 1.4g, If I can control my distance to the subject I reach for it rather that the much heavier 70-200.

The non-ART Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has a bit of a reputation of being soft right out of the box, because of poor calibration – and the one time I did try one at the counter sat B&H, it was noticeably back-focused on my camera. So I gave up on that one.